Re: prov-o review / comments

Hi Khalid 

I think the inference in the dm is about the properties - not their reifications per say

Paul

On Mar 6, 2012, at 18:31, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> I agree that the properties can be free to differ from the "Involvement" 
> hierarchy.
> 
> Regarding the flattening that you are suggesting in the Involvement 
> hierarchy, I am wondering if it may yield some issues later on. In 
> particular, if there are people who want to inject some inference rules 
> (constraint) in the ontology. For example, an inference rule that can be 
> applied to prov:Association should be also applicable to prov:End and 
> prov:Start (according to the DM), but the flattening suggested will 
> remove that implication. I don't think that the issue I am raising is 
> blocking, but I would like to know if people already thought of it.
> 
> Thanks, khalid
> 
> 
> On 06/03/2012 16:15, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> prov-wg,
>> 
>>> However the newer, split DM has changed some of these semantics, I am
>>> not now (quickly) able to find any relation subtypes that cause
>>> 'inheritence' of attributes and record id. The DM constraints [2] does
>>> not seem to inherit attributes, but allow 'any' attributes ("for some
>>> gAttr") in the inferred relations, except for this - perhaps strange
>>> one:
>>> 
>>> If the records entity(e,attrs) and wasAssociatedWith(a,e) hold for
>>> some identifiers a, e, and attribute-values attrs, then the record
>>> agent(e,attrs) also holds. So to be WD4 compliant we should not have
>>> any hierarchy of prov:Involvement beyond them being involvements.
>> 
>> For the sake of simplicity, I would like to propose that we follow Stian's suggestion regarding the subclass hierarchy under Involvement.
>> The critical aspect that we are conveying with the Involvement hierarchy is that we are referencing some binary relation to an Activity, Entity, or Agent.
>> Anything further is not provided by the hierarchy, at the cost of confusion.
>> 
>> Does anyone have an objection to flattening the hierarchy to "stop" at the primary Elements (Activity, Entity, Agent)?
>> 
>> prov:Involvement
>>     prov:ActivityInvolvement
>>         prov:Generation
>>         prov:Inform
>>         prov:StartByActivity
>>     prov:EntityInvolvement
>>         prov:AgentInvolvement
>>             prov:Association
>>             prov:End               # This raised a level
>>             prov:Start              # This raised a level
>>             prov:Attribution
>>             prov:Responsibility
>>         prov:Derivation
>>         prov:Source         # This raised a level
>>         prov:Revision      # This raised 2 levels
>>         prov:Quotation
>>         prov:Usage
>>     prov:Trace  # This raised a level (b/c it refers to either Activities or Entities)
>> 
>> The property hierarchy would be free to differ from the class hierarchy.
>> 
>> In the absence of objections, I will make the change by the end of the week.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Luc - is this the correct interpretation?
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/
>>> [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>> School of Computer Science
>>> The University of Manchester
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 18:11:28 UTC